You are here

Considering Alternatives

Having decided to look for an alternative to the I-710 corridor, we followed much the same process we used when initially selecting and evaluating I-710.

Preliminary assessment

We returned to the preliminary data we had gathered on corridors in the Los Angeles area, which added detailed quantitative information to our basic selection criteria.

Consulting with stakeholders

We met again with project stakeholders (Caltrans District 7, Caltrans Headquarters, LA Metro, PATH team) to review possible options. Satisfied that Caltrans District 7 still offered the best prospects for a suitable corridor, the group reviewed both the preliminary assessment data and the concerns that had emerged about I-710.

Choosing an alternative corridor

Our stakeholder discussions produced a consensus that I-210 had good potential for an ICM project.

Detailed evaluation

We then conducted a detailed evaluation of I-210, as we had for I-710, to get a better sense of its characteristics and suitability for the project. This included analyses of:

Corridor geometry (roadways, number of lanes)

Jurisdictional environment

Freeway control (ramp metering, HOV/HOT lanes)

Arterial control (signal density)

Transit services

Park & ride locations and occupancy

Changeable message signs

Congestion

Truck operations

Travel demand

Trip generators

Incidents

Freeway sensors

Arterial sensors

Traffic signal controllers

Traffic management systems

Information exchange network

TMC connections

Click the slides to see the types of data we gathered and evaluated:

Results

Our evaluation revealed that I-210, in contrast to I-710, possessed more advantages than disadvantages for an ICM project. In particular:

It is a multi-modal corridor with advanced arterial signal systems and ramp metering.